Who Killed Reconstruction?

Terrorizing “Carpetbaggers” and “Scalawags”

• ·      The image of the Alabama lynching is chilling, especially considering it was drawn as a warning to Republicans in the South. It is a direct threat to Carpetbaggers and Scalawags who sided with the Freedmen.
• ·      The KKK formed as a social club in 1866 and quickly evolved into an organization that used violence to intimidate Freedmen and any who sought to support Republican Reconstruction governments.
• ·      The KKK and other groups often targeted individuals in key positions of power including judges and government officials. Since the KKK did not see the Reconstruction governments as legitimate, they felt justified in their attacks. The term “redemption,” which they used to describe their efforts, literally means salvation. The KKK saw themselves as saviors for Southerners who were being enslaved by Reconstruction governments.
• ·      Albion Tourgee is one of the most famous of the so-called Carpetbaggers. He not only was an effective judge in a very violent area of North Carolina, he bravely wrote about his experiences and observations, thus endangering himself even more. He also helped start a school for black students, now known as Bennett College. After Reconstruction he left North Carolina and became an influential writer and editor in Colorado and New York.
• ·      The Donkey is the symbol of the Democratic Party and had been since the Age of Jackson. The image, therefore, is a threat to any who support the Republican efforts at Reconstruction. The donkey clearly links the KKK to the Democratic Party.

Targeting Black Voters and Government Officials

• ·      Elections during Reconstruction were times of increased violence in the South. Many Southerners saw the Republicans as conquerors—after all they were the party of Lincoln. Not surprisingly, Freedmen overwhelmingly voted for the Republican ticket. In 1868 President Grant won the popular vote by only 310,000 votes, 500,000 African American votes in the South were the difference.
• ·      Harper’s Weekly was a very influential Northern magazine. This 1876 image was a scathing attack on Southerners use of violence to intimidate the black vote. These scare tactics were used well into the 20^th century, and it wasn’t until the 1960s that many black Southerners felt safe enough to cast a vote.
• ·      It was well known in the North and in Congress that voter intimidation was rampant in most Southern states. Colby’s testimony was part of an effort to expose the cruel and illegal nature of the Klan’s activities. Congress did authorize President Grant to use troops suppress KKK activities. One of Grant’s greatest efforts led to the arrest of 600 Klansmen in South Carolina. Even though the celebrated event led to only 9 of the 600 men standing trial, much of the Klan’s energies were limited as its leaders went into hiding or fled. However, as Grant and Congress began to take less forceful measures after 1872, the ideals of Radical Reconstruction were doomed to fail. Soon White Leagues and the KKK remerged in full force.

Popular Opinion and Racism in the North

• ·      The only way that Reconstruction was going to succeed was if Northerners want it to do so. Resistance was strong in the South. The crusade of the Civil War left many Northerners willing to continue the aggressive Radical Reconstruction policies for a while. But eventually, fatigue, money, and the death of the most important radicals, left many in the North exhausted and frustrated.
• ·      One reason Northerners tired of Reconstruction has been traced to the racism that existed in the North. As blacks were being brutalized in the South, many Northerners turned a blind eye to the problem, and even began seeing blacks as the cause of their own problems. In her book, The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor, and Politics in the Post-Civil War North, 1865-1901, Heather Richardson makes a convincing case that Northern public opinion changed in the early 1870s. Newspapers and cartoonist, who had originally portrayed the slave as a hard working, freedom-seeking American, began to show blacks as lazy and corrupt and of low character in general. Richardson argues that the Freedmen was in part the victim of the Northern middle class becoming increasingly fearful of immigrants and labor unions, many of whom advocated socialist-like ideas. This shift in attitude toward Southern blacks is not surprising given that many Northern states had tight restrictions on black suffrage until the 15^th Amendment was passed.
• ·      If Northern racism was the reason the Federal Government became less interested in Reconstruction, then who was really responsible for bringing Reconstruction to an end—Northerners who were unwilling to force change, or Southerners who used violence and terrorism to resist change?

The DBQ Project

The Heritage of Reconstruction

The Heritage of Reconstruction

Many white Southerners regarded Reconstruction as a more grievous wound than the war itself. It left a festering scar that would take generations to heal. They resented the upending of their social and racial system, political empowerment of blacks, and the insult of federal intervention in their local affairs. Yet few rebellions have ended with the victors sitting down to a love feast with the vanquished. Given the explosiveness of the issues that had caused the war, and the bitterness of the fighting, the wonder is that Reconstruction was not far harsher than it was. The fact is that Lincoln, Johnson, and most Republicans had no clear picture at war’s end of what federal policy toward the South should be. Policymakers groped for the right policies, influenced as much by Southern responses to defeat and emancipation as by any plans of their own to impose a specific program on the South.

            The Republicans acted from a mixture of idealism and political expediency. They wanted both to protect the freed slaves and to promote the fortunes of the Republican party. In the end their efforts backfired badly. Reconstruction conferred only fleeting benefits on the blacks and virtually extinguished the Republican party in the South for nearly one hundred years.

            Moderate Republicans never fully appreciated the extensive effort necessary to make the freed slaves completely independent citizens, nor the lengths to which Southern whites would go to preserve their system of racial dominance. Had Thaddeus Stevens’s radical program of drastic economic reforms and heftier protection of political rights been enacted, things might well have been different. But deep-seated racism, ingrained American resistance to tampering with property rights, and rigid loyalty to the principle of local self-government, combined with spreading indifference in the North to the plight of the blacks, formed too formidable an obstacle. Despite good intentions by Republicans, the Old South was in many ways more resurrected than reconstructed.

                                                                                                                        The American Pageant

                                                                                                                        Houghton Mifflin

North or South: Who Killed Reconstruction?

North or South: Who Killed Reconstruction?

…the slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery.

                                                                                                            W.E.B. Dubois

1876 was an exciting year for America. It was the 100^th anniversary of The Declaration of Independence and America was on the move. Homesteaders and ranchers were filling up the land west of the Mississippi River. Railroads were being built at an astounding rate. It seemed the United States was creating enough opportunity that all Americans and millions of immigrants could pursue their hopes for happiness just as Thomas Jefferson had envisioned 100 years earlier.

            So it is a great irony of history that the election of 1876 officially crushed the American dream for millions of black Americans. This election saw Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican candidate and eventual winner, square off against Samuel J. Tilden, the Democratic nominee. Although Tilden won the popular vote by a wide margin, election results in Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana were so close that a winner could not be determined. If these three states went for Hayes, he would win the Electoral College vote and become President.

           

            Talk of new Civil War was in the air as the opponents in the disputed states submitted separate sets of electoral ballots. An informal agreement, now called The Compromise of 1877, avoided the crisis by granting Hayes the Presidency. In return, Hayes promised to remove the last Federal soldiers from the South, almost guaranteeing that all-white governments would rise to power. The dream of Reconstruction was officially dead.

            For a while, however, it had seemed that the dream of Reconstruction might be realize. The 13^th Amendment ended slavery. The 14^th Amendment gave black Americans citizenship and civil rights. A Military Reconstruction Act was passed to make sure African-Americans’ new rights were protected. Black churches were founded. Public schools were built for black children, and universities like Howard, Fisk, Morehouse, and Hampton were founded for black students seeking higher education. Sixteen African-Americans were elected to Congress and numerous others served at state and local levels. Finally, the 15^th Amendment was ratified making it illegal to deny someone the right to vote based on race. Indeed, real progress was made.

            However, in the early 1870s, the tide shifted. Southern states began to elect governments dedicated to whites-only rule. Between 1870 and 1876 all but three Southern states turned back Reconstruction efforts. When Rutherford B. Hayes agreed to remove federal soldiers, he was simply putting an end to an already dying effort. But dying or dead, what had gone wrong? North or South: Who killed Reconstruction?

                                                                                                                        The DBQ Project

Unification of Germany

BISMARCK UNITES GERMANY

Like Italy, Germany also achieved national unity in the mid-1800s. Beginning in 1815, 39 German states formed a loose grouping called the German Confederation. The Austrian Empire dominated the confederation. However, Prussia was ready to unify all the German states.

Prussia Leads German Unification:  Prussia enjoyed several advantages that would eventually help it forge a strong German state. First of all, unlike the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Prussia had a mainly German population. As a result, nationalism actually unified Prussia. In contrast, ethnic groups in Austria-Hungary tore the empire apart. Moreover, Prussia’s army was by far the most powerful in central Europe. In 1848, Berlin rioters forced a constitutional convention to write up a liberal constitution for the kingdom, paving the way for unification.

Bismarck Takes Control: In 1861, Wilhelm I succeeded Frederick William to the throne. The liberal parliament refused him money for reforms that would double the strength of the army. Wilhelm saw the parliament’s refusal as a major challenge to his authority. He was supported in his view by the Junkers, strongly conservative members of Prussia’s wealthy landowning class. In 1862, Wilhelm chose a conservative Junker named Otto von Bismarck as his prime minister. Bismarck was a master of what came to be known as realpolitik. This German term means “the politics of reality.” The term is used to describe tough power politics with no room for idealism. With realpolitik as his style, Bismarck would become one of the commanding figures of German history.

            With the king’s approval, Bismarck declared that he would rule without the consent of parliament and without a legal budget. Those actions were in direct violation of the constitution. In his first speech as prime minister, he defiantly told members of the Prussian parliament, “It is not by means of speeches and majority resolutions that the great issues of the day will be decided—that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by blood and iron.”

Prussia Expands: In 1864, Bismarck took the first step toward molding an empire. Prussia and Austria formed an alliance and went to war against Denmark to win two border provinces, Schleswig, while Austria controlled Holstein.

Seven Weeks’ War: Bismarck purposely stirred up border conflicts with Austria over Schleswig and Holstein. The tensions provoked Austria into declaring war on Prussia in 1866. This conflict was known as the Seven Weeks’ War. The Prussians used their superior training and equipment to win a devastating victory. They humiliated Austria. The Austrians lost the region of Venetia, which was given to Italy. They had to accept Prussian annexation of more German territory.

            With its victory in the Seven Weeks’ War, Prussia took control of northern Germany. For the first time, the eastern and western parts of the Prussian kingdom were joined. In 1867, the remaining states of the north joined the North German Confederation, which Prussia dominated completely.

The Franco-Prussian War: By 1867, a few southern German states remained independent of Prussian control. The majority of southern Germans were Catholics. Many in the region resisted domination by a Protestant Prussia. However, Bismarck felt he could win the support of southerners if they faced a threat from outside. He reasoned that a war with France would rally the south.

            Bismarck was an expert at manufacturing “incidents” to gain his ends. For example, he created the impression that the French ambassador had insulted the Prussian king. The French reacted to Bismarck’s deception by declaring war on Prussia on July 19, 1870.

            The Prussian army immediately poured into northern France.  In September 1870, the Prussian army surrounded the main French force at Sedan. Among the 83,000 French prisoners taken was Napoleon III himself. Parisians withstood a German siege until hunger forced them to surrender.

            The Franco-Prussian War was the final stage in German unification. Now the nationalistic fever also seized people in southern Germany. They finally accepted Prussian leadership. On January 18, 1871, at the captured French palace of Versailles, King Wilhelm I of Prussia was crowned kaiser, or emperor, Germans called their empire the Second Reich. (The Holy Roman Empire was the first.) Bismarck had achieved Prussian dominance over Germany and Europe “by blood and iron.”

A SHIFT IN POWER

The 1815 Congress of Vienna had established five Great Powers in Europe—Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia. In 1815, the Great Powers were nearly equal in strength. The wars of the mid-1800s greatly strengthened one of the Great Powers, as Prussia joined with other German states to form Germany. By 1871, Britain and Germany were clearly the most powerful, both militarily and economically. Austria and Russia lagged far behind. France struggled along somewhere in the middle. The European balance of power had broken down.

Modern World History

McDougal Littell

"Right Leg in the Boot at Last"

Analyzing Political Cartoons:

In this 1860 British cartoon, the king of Sardinia is receiving control of lands taken by the nationalist Garibaldi. This act was one of the final steps in the unification of Italy.

1. What symbol does the cartoonist use for the soon-to-be nation of Italy?
2. How is Garibaldi portrayed?
3. What does the title of the cartoon say about the cartoonist's view of Italian unification?

Modern World History

McDougal Littell

Unification of Italy

CAVOUR UNITES ITALY

While nationalism destroyed empires, it also built nations. Italy was one of the countries to form from the territory of crumbling empires. Between 1815 and 1848, fewer and fewer Italians were content to live under foreign rulers.

Cavour Leads Italian Unification: Italian nationalists looked for leadership from the kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, the largest and most powerful of the Italian states. The kingdom had adopted a liberal constitution in 1848. So, to the liberal Italian middle classes, unification under Piedmont-Sardinia seemed a good plan.

            In 1852, Sardinia’s king, Victor Emmanuel II, named Count Camillo di Cavour as his prime minister. Cavour was a cunning statesman who worked tirelessly to expand Piedmont-Sardinia’s power. Using skillful diplomacy and well-chosen alliances he set about gaining control of northern Italy for Sardinia.

            Cavour realized that the greatest roadblock to annexing northern Italy was Austria. In 1858, the French emperor Napoleon III agreed to help drive Austria out of the northern Italian provinces. Cavour then provoked a war with the Austrians. A combined French-Sardinian won two quick victories. Sardinia succeeded in taking all of northern Italy, except Venetia.

Garibaldi Brings Unity: As Cavour was uniting northern Italy, he secretly started helping nationalist rebels in southern Italy. In May 1860, a small army of Italian nationalists led by a bold and visionary soldier, Giuseppe Garibaldi, captured Sicily. In battle, Garibaldi always wore a bright red shirt, as did his followers. As a result, they became known as the Red Shirts.

            From Sicily, Garibaldi and his forces crossed to the Italian mainland and marched north. Eventually, Garibaldi agreed to unite the southern areas he had conquered with the kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia. Cavour arranged for King Victor Emmanuel II to meet Garibaldi in Naples. “The Red One” willingly agreed to step aside and let the Sardinian king rule.

            In 1866, the Austrian province of Venetia, which included the city of Venice, became part of Italy. In 1870, Italian forces took over the last part of a territory known as the Papal States. With this victory, the city of Rome came under Italian control. Soon after, Rome became the capital of the united kingdom of Italy. The pope, however, would continue to govern a section of Rome known as Vatican City.

Modern World History

McDougal Littell